Yeah, it would be much healthier if the boys were made to feel that their natural urges were dirty and evil.
Aside from his poorly informed opinons on the genesis of homosexuality, if Child Protective Services comes after a dad because he has a Playboy on the living room coffee table accessible by teenagers, then it’s time to disband that agency and fire the idiots that comprise it.
I can understand if there’s hardcore porn and small children involved, but if some CPS eager beaver wants to slippery slope this this into “child abuse” when it involves Playboy and teenagers, the “abuse” in that scenario is by CPS and not the dad.
Is that an attack on me?
No, I’m pretty sure that was sarcasm on AugustWest’s part.
This seems to be an area with no middle ground, you’re either a Prude, or a Perv.
Damn, I am an abusive parent and I never even knew it!! :eek:
I’ve got three lads, and they’ve got all sorts of pics with all sorts of girls in various stages of undress on their walls. I figured it was none of my business. I was abusing them all the time eh? God-damned I’m stoopid. 
It became my business when they put a calendar of teenage girls in bikinis on the back of the dunny door though. I told them that it made me feel insecure and inadequate to be faced with gorgeous nubile bodies every time I had to look at my rolls of middle-aged flab while squatting on the loo.
They removed it.
I don’t think this is life-scarring abuse, but it is definitely screwy–particularly the father’s stated motivation. The two eldest children may be old enough to deal with it, but I wonder about the 13 year old, being told he ought to look at porn now so he won’t turn out gay. (If the father is stating these things clearly to the children, that is.)
I would have been very uncomfortable at that age if my father announced he was leaving the Playboy out for us all to enjoy. Sexual arousal is not a family event. I don’t deny that my family members have sexuality, it’s just that I don’t wish to share that space with them. Nor do I feel it appropriate for them to offer to share that space with me. If the magazine was left out without any verbal explanation, I would be grossed out with the image of my dad buying a porno mag and what all goes along with that, but I would just ignore it and try to think happy thoughts to block out that image. (Who in their teens–or heck, even some as adults–thinks of their parents getting horny as sexually healthy behaviour? You know it is perfectly normal but you just don’t want to think about it!)
Playboy is a magazine that is basically marketed towards men who are attracted to women, so I wonder what the father’s intended message is for his daughter. He doesn’t know she’s bisexual, plus, he has issues with homosexuality. . .
Prude or Perv…niether.
I don’t care one way or another about those kids seeing porn…it’s their house.
I say to them; knock yourselves out 
.
My boyfriend when I graduated from high school was 22. His mom got him a subscription to Playboy when he was 13. She said she didn’t want any of it to be a mystery to him. He had a collection of years worth of porn magazines by the time I met him, plus a colourful collection of videotapes. He worked in a card shop selling baseball cards, Magic:TG cards, Star Wars toys and Beanie Babies when I met him. We didn’t stay together long, but we’re still friends.
Almost seven years later, he’s still working on writing that book he’s always going to finish, in and out of his nomadic mom’s place – where-ever in the country it might be – And he looks just like Jesus.
I don’t know what the significance of this is, either.
I think whether porn is appropriate for minors depends on the age and maturity level of the individual kid, particularly that they are old enough to understand things like Playboy are fantasy and that most women don’t look like that. And a softcore poster on the wall really isn’t much different from the Sports Illustrated swimsuit posters that plenty of my friends growing up had. Keeping it in the living room as a kind of “community porn” does seem a bit weird… but it makes me wonder more about the mental state of the parent and possible underlying motives than actual damage to the kids.
Balls.
It doesn’t matter what anyone’s opinion is. When it comes to the law, opinions and “I think” doesn’t matter. Having pornography laying about the house in the presence of children is something that Child Protective Services says is the wrong thing to do. I’m not saying it’s my opinion, I’m saying it’s the law. If you don’t agree, then research it and point me to a cite, please.
Legal issues aside, I think the parents are missing a golden opportunity here to teach their boys sensitivity and respect, not to mention avoidance of sexual harrassment lawsuits. There are other people in the house, not counting visitors. Therefore, out of respect for their mother and their sister, or any other person of any gender who could be expected to be disturbed by such images, such images should not be displayed in the open. Have a Playboy on your nightstand? Fine. It’s your personal space. Hang the pictures on the wall where seeing them is unavoidable while passing the room? In a workplace, that’s creating a hostile work environment.
It’s not a matter of hiding it or making it dirty, it’s a matter of respecting others and keeping one’s sexuality a private matter between oneself and one’s privates. And any other consenting partner of appropriate and legal age. There really is a middle ground here, IMHO.
But yes, legally, depending on the state you live in, this could be considered child abuse. We’ve had to have long talks at the WhyHouse about our attending clothing optional events with zero sexual activity with our kids, as technically seeing adult breasts could get them taken away from us.
Do you seriously see no difference between “CPS says it’s the wrong thing to do” and “it’s illegal child abuse”?
Just for funsies, here’s Wisconsin’s statutes on the matter:
For what the father is doing to rise to the level of illegal activity you’d have to prove that Playboy magazine is legally obscene to show to children and one would hope that even in John Ashcroft’s America we haven’t gotten to that point yet.
Link to searchable WI statutes
Just 'cause it’s the law don’t make it right … :rolleyes:
I’ve never figured out the Puritan Morals thing in this country (USA). It’s perfectly okay to allow children to watch the *Terminator * blast away killing cops and innocent people …
but it’s wrong to let them see a naked human being ?!?!?! :dubious:
Some of our lawmakers and “Moral Leaders” need to visit some of those small, ‘backwards’ European countries where just the opposite is the norm (i.e., naked = Okay – Gratuitous Violence discouraged …) and compare stats!
BTW – not that it matters to some people – and I can’t cite the court cases, but it has been proven *in court * that Playboy in not pornographic.
Here in Arizona, “sexual misuse of a child” is defined as exposure of a child to sexual stimulation inappropriate for the child’s age and role in the family. Having pornography distributed in the home in plain sight fits that description, according to my supervisor in the Guardian Ad Litem program.
It wouldn’t necessarily make the parents subject to prosecution, but it would definitely make them subject to investigation.
Laws do vary from state to state. The OP did not specify what state he’s in, so I used AZ statutes.
I’m wondering how a 13-year-old somehow shouldn’t be “sexually stimulated,” seeing as they tend to be pretty horny with or without benefit of porn.
I do think having the stuff in the living room is a bit skeevy, but I don’t think it’s really abusive if it’s just sort of there.
If it’s a choice of naked people or blowing people up, I’ll take naked anytime. Especially for my kids, if I had any.
Then maybe you should say that first.
I don’t think it’s that big of a deal. Playboy has never been hardcore porn as far as I know, in fact, if it’s regular Playboy, they don’t even do crotch shots. So, boys having access to nekkid pics of women, no biggie, IMO. If dad was hiding them under his bed, the boys would find them there too.
Now, if he was buying them Hustler, that might be a little different. But, tasteful nudity, in itself, does no harm, IMO. And it’s certainly not abuse.
Bolding mine.
That was trublmakr’s fourth post to this thread. In none of the first three did trublmakr specify a state:
At which point I provided a cite which contradicted trublmakr’s flat-out assertion, which led to the specification that trublmakr was going by Arizona’s laws.
When discussing laws which vary by jurisdiction, it is generally a good idea to state up front that one is discussing the laws of a specific jurisdiction rather than making blanket statements which are demonstrably false.
Anything else?
Never mind then. I stand corrected.